Good. Because it all boils down to the people's naiveté, unawareness of the political powers working against them and lack of decisiveness when these powers are brought to their attention. All of these are inverse to the attributes that someone in charge should have.
So if you are right and it is in fact not the people who are in charge, then the people still have noone but themselves to blame.

Also one thing I want to point out is that I am not supporting; I am observing. Why? Well, maybe I'm just content with my private interest group.

Good. Because it all boils down to the people's naiveté, unawareness of the political powers working against them and lack of decisiveness when these powers are brought to their attention. All of these are inverse to the attributes that someone in charge should have.

Well, a buffalo cannot teach a cow how to fight back. What can you do. In the same way a cow thinks that life is grand, not having to fight back wolves and all, like those stupid buffalo's. Until its time for BBQ.

Last edited by Prenj on Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:14 pm; edited 1 time in total

Good. Because it all boils down to the people's naiveté, unawareness of the political powers working against them and lack of decisiveness when these powers are brought to their attention. All of these are inverse to the attributes that someone in charge should have.
So if you are right and it is in fact not the people who are in charge, then the people still have noone but themselves to blame.

Jung stressed the importance of individual rights in a person's relation to the state and society. He saw that the state was treated as "a quasi-animate personality from whom everything is expected" but that this personality was "only camouflage for those individuals who know how to manipulate it",[41] and referred to the state as a form of slavery.[42][43][44][45] He also thought that the state "swallowed up [people's] religious forces",[46] and therefore that the state had "taken the place of God"—making it comparable to a religion in which "state slavery is a form of worship".[44] Jung observed that "stage acts of [the] state" are comparable to religious displays: "Brass bands, flags, banners, parades and monster demonstrations are no different in principle from ecclesiastical processions, cannonades and fire to scare off demons".[47] From Jung's perspective, this replacement of God with the state in a mass society led to the dislocation of the religious drive and resulted in the same fanaticism of the church-states of the Dark Ages—wherein the more the state is 'worshipped', the more freedom and morality are suppressed;[48] this ultimately leaves the individual psychically undeveloped with extreme feelings of marginalization.[49]

That paragraph accounts for the mcgruffs of the world pretty well. Fanatical religion-like slavery and collectivist worship of the state. It's all right there.

Yeah, Jung argued that by our psychological make-up we are inherently "religious". Not in a sense that he promoted organized religion, but that there is this drive, spiritual, psychological, or whatever it may be, that compells us to seek a "grand solution", and that in that quest, we often cannot cope with not finding it, so we project and proclaim "this is it". Of course, it isn't, but the drive is so strong and impatient, that any dissident voices are taboo and herecy, and the weakest are worshipping it and defending it with fervor and irrationality, which are the qualities of ego.

It is interesting that zen buddhism treats it differently, with their notion that it is not the goal (because as soon as we make up our minds that "this is it", it automatically becomes a fallacy that begs to be disproved) but the seeking that is our inherent spiritual path. The only thing that muddles the path is the false notion of "this is it". Hinduism talks about "attachment".

When you look at "liberal" rhethorics (well ex. liberal I should say), what started as liberal movement of disproving the fallacies of the past, it coagulated into this cultural narrative that became dogma by itself. Clearly there is a gap between that picture and reality, even if you can only sense it by intuition. So former liberals became inquisiton and thought police of today, and are defending it with blind zeal. Hence the political correctness, something that was once means of disarming old oppressive notions became oppressive in itself.

Hell, even Terence McKenna talked about it back in the early 90's, and he was as true liberal as you could get in those days:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OX77Qv66qw (not sure if I linked that earlier in some other thread).

Well, a buffalo cannot teach a cow how to fight back. What can you do. In the same way a cow thinks that life is grand, not having to fight back wolves and all, like those stupid buffalo's. Until its time for BBQ.

Of course you're the buffalo and the others are the cows, right?

BoneKracker wrote:

This is much like blaming the rape victim.

No. It would be if more than half of the rape victim was like "Well, that was actually kindof nice".